Fox Deception: Keystone XL Pipeline Would Lower Domestic Gas Prices
January 26, 2012 12:00 am ET by Andy Newbold
Tonight on Fox Business' Power And Money, David Asman hosted Joe Petrowski, President and CEO of Gulf Oil LP, to claim that because President Obama has decided not to immediately build the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline and pursue additional domestic oil production, gas prices will increase as early as "the summer." Petrowski specifically asserted that building the pipeline could reduce gas prices in the long term by as much as "20 to 30 cents a gallon."
However, according to researchers at the Cornell University Global Labor Institute, TransCanada, the proposed manufacturers of the pipeline, admitted that "KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually." The Cornell study explains that this will happen as a result of "diverting major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets."
Fox expects us to take Petrowski at his word when he claims that building KXL could result in gas prices dropping "20 to 30 cents a gallon"; indeed, Asman responds to his claim by saying that the Gulf executive is "on the retail side of the gas business, so you know" how gas prices come about.
But the Cornell University study estimates nearly the exact opposite of Petrowski's claim, estimating that building the KXL pipeline could increase domestic gas and diesel fuel prices in some states by between "10 to 20 cents more per gallon" and, to rub salt on the wound, possibly "cancel out some or all of the jobs created by KXL" after only one year of increased fuel prices. From the study:
HIGHER FUEL PRICES IN 15 STATES
According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to $5 billion to the annual US fuel bill. Further, the KXL pipeline will do nothing to insulate the US from oil price volatility.
Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of KXL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by KXL, based on the (more accurate) $3 to 4 billion budget for KXL (the remaining cost to build within the Us). Higher fuel prices due to KXL would have broad adverse impacts. Gasoline is a significant cost for most Americans, and especially for those with lower incomes and/or residing in rural areas. Moreover, refined oil products (notably gasoline and diesel) are very widely used throughout the economy (especially in agriculture and commercial transportation). So higher fuel prices due to KXL would ripple through the economy and impact a very broad range of people and businesses.
This is just another example of Fox misleading its viewers on facts about the Keystone XL pipeline.
IF Obama were FOR the pipeline, FoxPAC and the rest would just switch sides and attack him for the Government forcing landowners that don't WANT this pipeline on their land but will be forced to sell.
You know they would...
Pfft, we all know universities are bastions of liberal elitism and brainwashing.
Wow, those speculators are prescient - they knew as far back as I can remember (caring about gas prices) that Pres. Obama would nix this pipeline! Now, as then, gas prices will increase in the summer.
No wonder they're rich!
</sarc>
Idiots...
It is MMFA that deceives. Espicelly when it comes to their tax exempt status. Please read the following interesting article.
MMFA and the tax exempt question...
As for deception, to make such a charge you need to provide specifics. Typical of those who come here and make that charge, you're woefully short on any specific examples. In other words, you're blowing smoke.
Don't mistake this as a defense of biggovernment.com...but if we're going to discount info based on a "shoot the messenger" ploy...then it's a fair criticism of mmfa on this story with their use of the study by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute.
They fail to identify the GLI as a self-avowed front for union policies...a failure that they harp on repeatedly. The GLI policy agenda is as follows:
-- The GLI is part of Cornell University's School for Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR), the leading U.S. university program specializing in labor relations. Through research, education and training and policy development, the GLI woks with trade unions in the U.S. and internationally to develop solutions to major social, economic and environmental challenges. The goal of the Institute is to help union officers, staff and activists gain a deeper understanding of the policies and institutions that shape today's world, assist in bringing unionists based in different countries into contact with each other for meaningful discussion on strategy and policy, and facilitate dialogue between unions, civil society organizatons and movements committed to global justice. --
Failure to disclose political/social connections is an ethos that mmfa rails on repeatedly...and one that they clearly violated in this story by referring to the GLI as "researchers" when in fact they are "union researchers".
Dude, that's disclosing information, pure and simple.
Ah, but you're upset that MMFA didn't provide another link to this page which, of course, would be impossible, impossible, impossible to find--except, of course, to those who know how to use the Google.
What other information would you like disclosed in these articles? The number of left handers vrs. right handers? Pro-Giants vrs. Pro-Patriots?
The study mentioned in the e-mail is up, and, as stated, it's a review of how the mainstream media heavily slanted their pipeline coverage to those in favor of Keystone XL. I'd say that falls within the "monitoring" and "analyzing" categories of MMFA's mission statement.
What political party is Keystone a member of? And just what political office is it running for? "Corporations are people, too" notwithstanding the answers are "none," and "none."
Nevertheless, I'm sure his article will be a big hit with Breitbart's core audience--the tragically gullible.
I don't like the method of extracting the shale oil either but what you left wingers don't get is that Canada is going to extract the oil whether you like it or not so then the question is do they ship it to China or to the US and you morons would let it go to China. I say we build the pipeline and keep China from getting the oil.
Also MMFA keeps crying about the jobs number being exaggerated but that is really a nonissue. It's funny how MMFA will cry about these jobs numbers being exaggerated but say nothing of the exaggeration of the jobs numbers by Obama. Funny how that works.
You're the one making claims--ones with no citations to support the opinion being expressed.
That pipeline would NOT keep China from getting any oil. The oil that runs through it would go into the world market.
Providing updates about their studies on the media isn't promoting a particular political party or candidate. They also aren't attempting to influence legislation.
From the IRS
Idiot.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/keystone_xl_is_a_tar_sands_pip.html